MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3134736056 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab002.089

A91 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF A FECAL MICROBIOTA TRANSPLANTATION PROGRAM FOR RECURRENT CLOSTRIDIOIDES DIFFICILE INFECTION IN ALBERTA

2021· article· en· W3134736056 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Yi Yang, Tom Mullie, Huaibo Sun, Lindsey Russell, B Roach, Karen Wong, Wenli Zhang, Dina Kao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British ColumbiaAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridioidesMedicineClostridium difficileC difficileFecal bacteriotherapyAmbulatoryTransplantationInternal medicineHealth careEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is the most effective therapy for recurrent C. difficile infection. Although studies using statistical modeling have shown FMT to be cost-effective, real-world data is lacking. Aims To assess the impact of FMT program on the healthcare cost of recurrent C. difficile infections using real-world data from Alberta’s public healthcare system. Methods C. difficile infection patients were identified through provincial laboratory database with positive C. difficile results in Edmonton, Alberta between 2009–16. If an initial positive test was followed by ≧2 positive tests within 183 days, an individual was categorized as recurrent C. difficile infection (RCDI). Otherwise, non-recurrent C. difficile infection (non-RCDI) was assigned. Since the Edmonton FMT program was established in 2013, patients were further divided into pre-FMT (2009–12) and post-FMT (2013–16) eras. This divided patients into four study groups as outlined in Table 1. Administrative data, including inpatient stays, ambulatory or emergency room visits, outpatient prescriptions, and physician billings, were extracted. A cost of $389 was assigned to each FMT procedure to account for cost of donor screening and sample preparation. A difference in differences (DID) approach, a tool which estimates the effect of a treatment by comparing outcome difference between treatment group and control group over time, was used to analyze the impact of FMT program on the cost of RCDI. Non-RCDI patients were used as control group to account for changes in treatment costs over time. Ordinary least squares regression, with log-transformed healthcare cost as the dependent variable, was used for the analysis. Results 4717 non-RCDI and 548 RCDI patients were identified and divided into the 4 groups (Table 1). RCDI patients were significantly older than non-RCDI patients (71.13 vs 62.49; P < 0.001). After adjusting for differences in age, sex, and baseline healthcare utilization, cost for RCDI patients were significantly lower relative to costs for non-RCDI patients in the post-FMT era. Cost of non-RCDI increased by $5,300.08 between the pre- and post-FMT eras, while the cost of RCDI decreased by $7,654.92 in the same time frame (Table 2). FMT program was estimated to have saved $12,954 annually for RCDI patients at mean age, sex, and baseline cost of our overall sample. Conclusions Our data suggest that the healthcare cost of RCDI has decreased with the introduction of an FMT program. Funding Agencies Alberta Health Services, University of Alberta Hospital Foundation

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research→French-language works237,207→